In response to Laura Perrins: Feminists trashed the husband and breadwinner role. Men are not coming back, Isambard wrote:
There are some fundamental misconceptions in this debate. In traditional/tribal societies that make up the vast majority of human existence, women have always worked, childcare has been to a greater or lesser extent collective and young women have had to do more physical work when required. There was no sense of the man as the sole breadwinner although men and women were, and are, physiologically adapted to different roles with suitable mental and physical attributes.
Men have always sought status and women have always sought a collective environment. The ‘modern’ (dysfunctional?) economy offers women a collective working environment with good economic rewards. Increasingly, men are finding it hard to find opportunities for status. The professions have become process driven, dominated by women, and there are few jobs actually producing anything.
Somehow we think we are going to balance a £100bn trade deficit in goods with services, in the so called ‘service economy’. Financial services do provide some off-set for our trade deficit but this is dependent on the current fantasy money go-round, and London is under attack from Europe and elsewhere as a financial centre. If – and when – the current financial house of cards collapses, the economic and social drivers are going to dramatically change. Whether our statist society will be able to adapt is a different question.
A man’s status is tied to his ability to defend his own family and tribe. As we give up the concept of family and nation, men are increasingly at a loss as to what they might be defending. In a world where policy makers increasingly seem to be childless and where people are simply considered units for producing GDP, without any sense of real value, it will require great independence of mind for both men and women to find a human solution to their lives. Our education system, of course, does not encourage this.